Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/300689 
Authors: 
Year of Publication: 
2024
Series/Report no.: 
ZÖSS Discussion Paper No. 105
Publisher: 
Universität Hamburg, Zentrum für Ökonomische und Soziologische Studien (ZÖSS), Hamburg
Abstract: 
Controversy is vital in the pursuit of knowledge. Constructive dispute can drive intellectual growth and deepen understanding within a field. However, mutual respect, thorough engagement, and intellectual humility are necessary for productive exchanges. In this vein, I clarify in my response to Tom Palley's critique of my article that I did not argue against his claim regarding social conflict in Keynesian economics. However, I questioned whether social conflict is the sole ontological fault line, as Palley suggests. Additionally, I highlighted the distinction between Keynes' economics and Keynesian economics, challenging Palley's lumping them together as part of a liberal project. In conclusion, Palley's assertions regarding the absence of social conflict in Keynesian economics and its implications for economic laws lack foundation.
Subjects: 
Keynes
social conflict
paradigm shift
JEL: 
A14
B40
B51
E11
E12
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.